8

Any post not about programming should go, after all, so it adds no information.

I noticed five such tags in the 10k tools today. Four were completely spurious and have been removed. One appears to have been a mis-tag of [parallel-programming].


Edit: As of 24 August [programming] has made a comeback. Off to fix it, again.

8
  • 2
    I've removed the tag of the last question on the site. So it wont be suggested any more when entering tags. It will take someone with 1500+ rep to recreate it and they should know better
    – ChrisF Mod
    Aug 21 '10 at 21:01
  • @ChrisF I thought I got them all. Maybe I missed one, or it was new, or maybe there is a race condition in the caching. Any way, thanks. Aug 21 '10 at 21:02
  • I did wonder why one showed up, anyway all gone now and should be harder to recreate
    – ChrisF Mod
    Aug 21 '10 at 21:03
  • Still should be banned though
    – TheLQ
    Aug 21 '10 at 21:46
  • @Chris: IIRC, once a tag exists in the system, even if there are no questions associated with it, any user can use the tag on a question, even though it doesn't show up in the list. The 1500 rep threshold only applies for actual new tags that don't yet exist in the system.
    – Jon Seigel
    Aug 22 '10 at 16:31
  • @Jon - but with it not showing on the list there's a reduced chance it will show up again quite as quickly.
    – ChrisF Mod
    Aug 22 '10 at 16:59
  • @Chris: Although it's tough to say how often a user would just randomly type "parallel programming" in the tags box without even checking the autocomplete, I do agree with you.
    – Jon Seigel
    Aug 22 '10 at 17:13
  • @jon only until the cleanup processes run at around 00:00 UTC Aug 25 '10 at 2:52
3

ok, it's banned.

3
  • 5
    Is there any chance that this is what's affecting [functional-programming], [parallel-programming], and [pair-programming]? meta.stackexchange.com/questions/62224/… Aug 25 '10 at 11:14
  • ...but a positive side-effect is that we can't add the [not-programming-related] tag anymore either. :) Aug 25 '10 at 17:44
  • 3
    @bill I changed the rule to be more restrictive -- my bad Aug 25 '10 at 20:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .